Email to the County Council
The Montgomery County Council is supposed to vote on a bill that would make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. Basically, it will add the words "gender identity" here and there in the existing law. You already can't discriminate on the basis of race, religion, and a bunch of other things, the bill will add a couple of words to the law we already have.
Most of us will not be affected by this, and it's kind of a hard thing to get excited about. A small number of people feel they are the wrong gender, sometimes they act the way they feel instead of the way they look, and it confuses people. Some people, when they get confused, get angry, like they can't believe anything in the world would be hard to understand, or should be hard to understand.
The County Council has been hearing from those people.
Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends and Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), one of the groups that sued the school district, wrote to the County Council:
PFOX is concerned about "weekend transgenders," and somehow tries to connect that to "reversal surgery." I don't know a lot about this, but I'm guessing that people who get hormone treatments and surgery don't usually go back to the other sex during the week.
Somebody who feels they are the opposite sex from their body is not playing a game, as PFOX would like you to think (and I'd like to know how many of those "reversal surgeries" PFOX has actually ever paid for). Maybe somebody has to go by the straight rules during the week, like at work, and maybe they get to be who they really are on the weekends -- who of us can't relate to that? You do hate to think that the way you are at work is the real you, don't you? So, I barbecue on the weekend, another guy wears a dress, what's the harm?
Ms. Griggs forwarded a letter from another PFOX ... member ...
Two things. "Normative social self-identity." You know what that means? I don't either. I'm a social psychologist, it sounds like it's supposed to be one of our words, but it's not. (Oddly, the phrase "Normative social self-identity" gets zero hits on Google.)
I think this person is saying that if you act like it's okay to be transgender, everybody will do it. So -- would you? No, I wouldn't either.
Maybe they're just suggesting that ordinary people can't let transgender people deal with their own feelings, we should force them to dress and look like the rest of us. That does seem like a weak premise in a free society, somehow.
Second thing. Why would this person think discrimination laws should only cover "that which is immutable and readily observable to the stranger?" Like, wha?
It seems they have just invented their own principle of government, and then, having done that, they want us to know that this bill violates it.
I don't think anybody seriously thinks it would be okay to discriminate on the basis of religion, for instance, which is entirely mutable.
And anyway, if you talk to transgender people, you definitely get the idea this is an immutable characteristic. You would not go through this whole transition on a whim, these are people who suffer their whole lives with the profound belief that their mind and body are from Venus and Mars. And it doesn't go away.
She has more:
Ah, this argument: I feel fine the way I am, therefore everyone should be like me. Exclamation mark.
You can call it a psychological problem, that constant feeling of wrongness, day after day, year after year. But it is a psychological problem that can often be corrected through hormones and/or surgery, and maybe some pretty clothes.
This writer really has a lot to say. This next one is a terrific argument. Really, this is great. I skip down...
Perfect logic. Gender Identity Disorder is listed in the DSM. Schizophrenia is listed in the DSM. Therefore transgender people are like schizophrenics. Oh, and also we need to retain the right to discriminate against them.
Some people think normality is enforceable. Whatever it is normal people do, you have to do that. Whatever shoes they wear, how they cut their hair, whatever TV shows they watch, you'd better do that, too. You think a guy is a guy, and then it turns out he feels different, he dresses how he feels, and ooh, you've got a problem. And that's just ... too ... much.
Sorry if the world doesn't do what you expect it to, sometimes you gotta ride with it.
By the way, the lady from Silver Spring summarizes the complexities of human sexuality in a letter you can find on the Internet: The only sexual behavior that Jesus permitted is monogamous sex between husband and wife. If any of our Christian readers have the verse and chapter where Jesus said that, could you please post it into the comments? I also enjoyed another online letter she published, where, speaking of the US Constitution, she said "freedom of religion" pretty much referred to Christianity, with the inclusion of Judaism as its legitimate forerunner. I think we're getting the picture of this letter-writer.
There are others, I'm going to post some more later, but this was getting long.
The point is: this is what the County Council is hearing from the public. How are they supposed to know that anybody out here feels any differently?
Tell them what you think. County Council contact information is HERE
Most of us will not be affected by this, and it's kind of a hard thing to get excited about. A small number of people feel they are the wrong gender, sometimes they act the way they feel instead of the way they look, and it confuses people. Some people, when they get confused, get angry, like they can't believe anything in the world would be hard to understand, or should be hard to understand.
The County Council has been hearing from those people.
Regina Griggs, the executive director of Parents and Friends and Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), one of the groups that sued the school district, wrote to the County Council:
... many transgenders do not live as the opposite sex on a permanent basis. As an organization which raises funds for the reversal surgery of former transgenders and provides referrals to therapists specializing in gender identity disorders, PFOX can attest that many transgenders prefer to appear as the opposite sex on a part-time or temporary basis; that is, they prefer to dress as a woman or man one day and then their birth gender the next day or the next week. These are known as "weekend transgenders" or "Tuesday transgenders." Our question: Are weekend transgenders covered under the proposed gender identity non-discrimination bill 23-07?
...
Regina Griggs
Executive Director
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays
PFOX
Box 561, Fort Belvoir VA 22060
PFOX is concerned about "weekend transgenders," and somehow tries to connect that to "reversal surgery." I don't know a lot about this, but I'm guessing that people who get hormone treatments and surgery don't usually go back to the other sex during the week.
Somebody who feels they are the opposite sex from their body is not playing a game, as PFOX would like you to think (and I'd like to know how many of those "reversal surgeries" PFOX has actually ever paid for). Maybe somebody has to go by the straight rules during the week, like at work, and maybe they get to be who they really are on the weekends -- who of us can't relate to that? You do hate to think that the way you are at work is the real you, don't you? So, I barbecue on the weekend, another guy wears a dress, what's the harm?
Ms. Griggs forwarded a letter from another PFOX ... member ...
... There are serious issues that this Bill raises with respect to the common good and with respect to the idea that 'transgenderism' is a normative social self-identity. Allow me to explain further, in the hope of bringing more information to bear on this very momentous possible change in the laws and life ot the County. Laws against discrimination should only cover that which is immutable and readily observable to the stranger to prevent discrimination by such characteristics as race and ethnic group, for example...
Two things. "Normative social self-identity." You know what that means? I don't either. I'm a social psychologist, it sounds like it's supposed to be one of our words, but it's not. (Oddly, the phrase "Normative social self-identity" gets zero hits on Google.)
I think this person is saying that if you act like it's okay to be transgender, everybody will do it. So -- would you? No, I wouldn't either.
Maybe they're just suggesting that ordinary people can't let transgender people deal with their own feelings, we should force them to dress and look like the rest of us. That does seem like a weak premise in a free society, somehow.
Second thing. Why would this person think discrimination laws should only cover "that which is immutable and readily observable to the stranger?" Like, wha?
It seems they have just invented their own principle of government, and then, having done that, they want us to know that this bill violates it.
I don't think anybody seriously thinks it would be okay to discriminate on the basis of religion, for instance, which is entirely mutable.
And anyway, if you talk to transgender people, you definitely get the idea this is an immutable characteristic. You would not go through this whole transition on a whim, these are people who suffer their whole lives with the profound belief that their mind and body are from Venus and Mars. And it doesn't go away.
She has more:
As well-intentioned as this law may be, it seems strange and wrong to me to legally protect the fact, in this case, that people who can't accept their own sex should have the legal right to demand that others accept them as the sex they are not, and can never truly be, because one's sex truly is inborn! If that is not an indication of a psychological problem, then I don't know what is!
Ah, this argument: I feel fine the way I am, therefore everyone should be like me. Exclamation mark.
You can call it a psychological problem, that constant feeling of wrongness, day after day, year after year. But it is a psychological problem that can often be corrected through hormones and/or surgery, and maybe some pretty clothes.
This writer really has a lot to say. This next one is a terrific argument. Really, this is great. I skip down...
A person experiencing gender identity confusion cannot be fully trusted psychologically because he/she does not trust his/her own self, psychologically. In addition, Gender Identity Disorder is a bona fide psychiatric disorder. Having grown up with a sister who suffered from various degrees of mental illness, and who is now unable to care for herself, I am aware of the difficulties and petty tyrannies imposed by people with emotional/psychiatric problems, and I have extraordinary experience and reason to feel extremely concerned about the proposed legislation.
Perfect logic. Gender Identity Disorder is listed in the DSM. Schizophrenia is listed in the DSM. Therefore transgender people are like schizophrenics. Oh, and also we need to retain the right to discriminate against them.
I submit, therefore, that it is not consistent with the protection of the common good to allow people with certain non-immutable peculiarties, however wonderful the person may be, to be protected legally more than others. While I'm sure this bill is well-meant, I believe it has unusually high potential to cause more problems than it solves.
Sincerely,
Emily Volz
Silve Spring, MD
Some people think normality is enforceable. Whatever it is normal people do, you have to do that. Whatever shoes they wear, how they cut their hair, whatever TV shows they watch, you'd better do that, too. You think a guy is a guy, and then it turns out he feels different, he dresses how he feels, and ooh, you've got a problem. And that's just ... too ... much.
Sorry if the world doesn't do what you expect it to, sometimes you gotta ride with it.
By the way, the lady from Silver Spring summarizes the complexities of human sexuality in a letter you can find on the Internet: The only sexual behavior that Jesus permitted is monogamous sex between husband and wife. If any of our Christian readers have the verse and chapter where Jesus said that, could you please post it into the comments? I also enjoyed another online letter she published, where, speaking of the US Constitution, she said "freedom of religion" pretty much referred to Christianity, with the inclusion of Judaism as its legitimate forerunner. I think we're getting the picture of this letter-writer.
There are others, I'm going to post some more later, but this was getting long.
The point is: this is what the County Council is hearing from the public. How are they supposed to know that anybody out here feels any differently?
Tell them what you think. County Council contact information is HERE
posted by JimK at 6:27 AM
21 Comments:
Wow.
I am sorry that Mrs. Volz feels tyrannized by her sister's illness. It must feel really terrible to have to take care of a chronically ill person. Does she suppose it feels good to be chronically ill?
Mrs. Volz's charge that transgender people must be inherently unstable and untrustworthy is a pretty good answer to the anon who keeps demanding to know why this law is necessary. If a transgender person has a career in which he or she is successful for a decade (or two or three) prior to transitioning, the transgender person will continue to be successful after transitioning, if he or she is allowed to continue to work. Here' the big secret: transgender people are transgender before they transition, whether they let us know about it or not.
I know of one person who actually got better at her job. A coworker of my sister-in-law transitioned on the job and after transitioning she used fewer sick days, was more prompt, worked more efficiently, and was friendlier to coworkers. She felt better and so she worked better.
Transgender people want to work. Transgender people want to have good homes. Trangsender people like paying their bills. They like sending their kids to college. They like to put a paycheck in the bank and then buy groceries. They want to adjust the thermostat, have a roof and walls to keep the heat in, and money to pay for the gas and electricity.
Bill 23-07 can make help that happen.
"If a transgender person has a career in which he or she is successful for a decade (or two or three) prior to transitioning, the transgender person will continue to be successful after transitioning, if he or she is allowed to continue to work."
This may be so and it may not. It really should be left to an employer to decide whether the change affects the person's ability to do their job.
Obviously, your point about the person being able to survive is valid but maybe the better way to go would be to set a county office to help the people find an employment environment where the employer is comfortable with them, to help any fall into this situation. Honestly, I'm surprised some of the liberal Protestant and Reformed Jewish congregations in the county don't already have such a ministry.
Also, this probably wouldn't be causing the controversy it is if the bill was limited to employment discrimination. The public accomodation part is outrageous. If the county goes ahead and passes it, they can expect to fight for their position in the next election.
If the county goes ahead and passes it, they can expect to fight for their position in the next election.
Bring it on. CRC supported a few candidates for BOE in the 2006 election, and all of them lost their races. Let's see how far a CRC-supported candidate or two gets running for County Council.
TrBlue
You mistakenly assume all Democrats favor this idea of requiring establishments to let guys who dress up like girls use girls' locker rooms and restrooms. Hard as it is to believe, there are Democrats with common sense.
"'The only sexual behavior that Jesus permitted is monogamous sex between husband and wife.' If any of our Christian readers have the verse and chapter where Jesus said that, could you please post it into the comments?"
Try Matthew 5:27-30 and Mark 10:5-9 and 17-23.
OK, Jesus was against divorce and took a broad view of adultery as including lust. I don't think that quite supports the view expressed by this letter-writer, but thanks for posting those links.
JimK
Don't you think if he took the broad view that implies support for the narrow view too. If so, I think the letter-writer was correct.
The other thing I think I worth noting is that, if you take the whole Sermon on the Mount in context, then, in addition to taking the broad view of sin, is that, under the broad view, no one is guiltless.
Well, that's today's Sermon on the Web
Anon, to tell you the truth, I take these verses to mean, first, that it is important to have pure thoughts, besides correct actions, and second, that it is important not to betray the trust of someone who loves you.
The "pure thoughts" idea was probably revolutionary in its day, at least outside of the priesthood, though I'll bet you'd find sophisticated meditation practices among the Gnostics and Essenes and others, which I always assumed this admonition relates to. Why would anybody care what you think, if you don't act on it? Two reasons. One, your thoughts do in some way precede and possibly determine your actions, and two, it is a component in some powerful spiritual exercises.
A marriage is a special relationship, and it requires a special attitude, no doubt, and it is a fair assumption that the spouses will be of opposite sex, but I certainly don't read this as a mandate regarding heterosexuality.
JimK
"The "pure thoughts" idea was probably revolutionary in its day, at least outside of the priesthood, though I'll bet you'd find sophisticated meditation practices among the Gnostics and Essenes and others, which I always assumed this admonition relates to."
Myself, I think that he was trying to expand their understanding of how to be reconciled to God, contrasting it with what the religious leaders of his time taught. The point, I believe, is that legalistically following a bunch of rules is worthless as a way to God. It's not doing something that's important, it's being something.
"A marriage is a special relationship, and it requires a special attitude, no doubt, and it is a fair assumption that the spouses will be of opposite sex, but I certainly don't read this as a mandate regarding heterosexuality."
When you asked for a verse to back up this:
"The only sexual behavior that Jesus permitted is monogamous sex between husband and wife."
I didn't know you were asking about homosexuality.
Let me see if I understand you now. You think Jesus said that breaking wedding vows was immoral but said nothing about sexual activity, such as fornication and homosexuality, among people who are not married. Is that what you wanted to see the scriptural back-up for?
These PFOX folks are NUTS in wanting to CONTROL everyone / everything BUT themselves. Their correspondence becomes Public Information since it was sent to Montgomery County Government. Thank you for giving the Public this insight of PFOX's irrational behavior.
TrueBlueHue said...
"If the county goes ahead and passes it, they can expect to fight for their position in the next election."
Bring it on. CRC supported a few candidates for BOE in the 2006 election, and all of them lost their races. Let's see how far a CRC-supported candidate or two gets running for County Council.
November 07, 2007 9:41 AM
Anonymous said...
TrBlue
You mistakenly assume all Democrats favor this idea of requiring establishments to let guys who dress up like girls use girls' locker rooms and restrooms. Hard as it is to believe, there are Democrats with common sense.
Talk is cheap. When the CRC puts up a candidate who makes it beyond the primary then we'll see how much of a "fight" they give one of our fine County Council members. We'll find that our neighbors here in Montgomery County do not feel like you do; they do not hate LGBT people or want to ignore them in health classes or discriminate against them in housing, employment, and public facililties. They understand most women are modest in public and trans women are even more so. CRC, PFOX and FLN are unique here in the county with their hatred for and deranged desire to discriminate against LGBT people.
"When the CRC puts up a candidate who makes it beyond the primary then we'll see how much of a "fight" they give one of our fine County Council members."
It doesn't have to be a CRC candidate, TB. Whoever is running in opposition will be able to use this lack of common sense to their advantage.
"We'll find that our neighbors here in Montgomery County do not feel like you do; they do not hate LGBT people"
So, to you, if anyone doesn't want to pass laws giving a group special status as a protected group, they must hate them? Do you think laws should be passed making it against the law to discriminate against lazy people or people who wear ripped clothes? Why not? Do you hate those people? Your logic fails.
"or want to ignore them in health classes"
The problem is not that MCPS wants to discuss them. It wants to advocate for them.
"or discriminate against them in housing, employment, and public facililties."
There is no law requiring anyone to discriminate against transgenders. Even is this law isn't enacted, everyone who wants to hire, house and provide unisex restrooms will be free to do so- just like they are now.
No statistics hve been provided here that transgenders in MC encounter any of these problems.
"They understand most women are modest in public and trans women are even more so."
Most women don't want men who dress like women in the restroom with them. I assume these people would now be basically immune from indecent exposure laws. While they still have the bodily structures of men, they should use the men's room.
Oh that's a good one Anon. Put on a dress, walk into a public men's room looking for a private stall to take care of your personal business, and let us know how it works out for you.
"Oh that's a good one Anon. Put on a dress, walk into a public men's room looking for a private stall to take care of your personal business, and let us know how it works out for you."
First, tell of any instances where this worked ou badly for someone in MC.
Admit it "Anonymous"...what galls you the most is giving anybody the rights enjoyed by the majority of our citizens. You think it is good public policy to be able to deny citizens equal rights; more people here in M.C. happen to disagree with that very narrow viewpoint. Good thing you weren't around to influence the granting of rights to women and to people of color. We'd still be living in the dark ages of right-wing delight!
Rob
"Admit it "Anonymous"...what galls you the most is giving anybody the rights enjoyed by the majority of our citizens."
There are no rights "enjoyed by the majority of our citizens" that aren't enjoyed by all of them.
You're delusional.
"You think it is good public policy to be able to deny citizens equal rights;"
Everyone has an equal right to use the bathroom of their gender. Everyone has to deal with the fact that when they apply for a job or look for an apartment, there are things unique about them that others might not like and might affect accomplishing their goal. It's called life.
If someone disagrees with the idea of gender travelling and doesn't want to associate with or be associated with people that engage in it, it should be their right to do so. Everyone doesn't need to be forced by the government to be nice to transgenders. Employers and landlords shouldn't be forced to walk on eggshells when they're around these people to avoid a lawsuit.
"more people here in M.C. happen to disagree with that very narrow viewpoint."
As far as I know, there's no documentation or proof of that.
"Good thing you weren't around to influence the granting of rights to women and to people of color. We'd still be living in the dark ages of right-wing delight!"
How do you know I wasn't around?
Calling someone's racial identity the equivalent of unnatural sexual desire is offensive.
You may not be aware, because you probably weren't around but the gay liberation movement of the 70s was closely subsequented by the introduction of a new deadly and incurable disease to our nation.
"Anonymous" - how do YOU know I wasn't around in the 70's?
"Calling someone's racial identity the equivalent of unnatural sexual desire is offensive." Interesting - your interpretation (distortion)of what I said - no where did I ever equate racial identity with unnatural sexual desire. But, for your edification, I find your labeling any one's sexual desire that doesn't adhere to your rigid Puritanical sex-phobia equally offensive.
"the gay liberation movement of the 70s was closely subsequented by the introduction of a new deadly and incurable disease to our nation." Falling back on the old discredited "AIDS - the gay disease" - how uneducated of you. You forgot to mention that Gays were responsible for destructive hurricanes, the attack on the World Trade Center, and the fires in California. Oh...and the 50% divorce rate among the "family value" heterosexual crowd, too.
It will be a glorious day when you get over your fear of people who are different from you...but that is too much to expect.
Actually, anon, "subsequented" is not a word. But just so you know, HIV entered into the US from Haiti around 1966, before there was any gay revolution. The Haitians had picked it up in the Congo (heterosexually) after their independence when many Haitians emigrated to the Congo for work. And the Congolese had been infected after the virus jumped from chimp to man in the late 30's.
And you know what else? All those other sexually transmitted diseases, like syphilis and gonorrhea, were transmitted by heterosexuals just like you.
Actually, Dr, they've found it present in tissue samples dating back to the fifties. The point is it didn't gain a foothold until the free-for-all gay bathhouse scene that followed on the heels of the gay liberation movement. The rampant random promiscuity and ubiquitous anal sex in this population was the perfect incubator for circulating the virus. STDs of all types increased with it. It was the consequences that subsequented the gay liberation movement.
No statistics hve been provided here that transgenders in MC encounter any of these problems...First, tell of any instances where this worked ou badly for someone in MC.
Maryland doesn't collect statistics on transgender hate crimes but here's some data about such crimes around the nation and the DC area:
Violent crime against transgender people occurs with alarming frequency, but because these incidents are vastly under reported, there is little statistical data to quantify the precise number of such crimes that occur each year. One of the few attempts to determine the prevalence of hate crimes against transgender people is a 2000 study of Washington D.C. conducted by the District of Columbia Health Department. The Washington D.C. Transgender Needs Assessment Survey reported that 43 percent of respondents had been victims of violent crime—75 percent of these crimes were motivated by transgender bias. Seventeen percent had been assaulted with a weapon.
Jessica Xavier, “Final Report of the Washington DC Transgender Needs Assessment Survey,” Administration for HIV and AIDS, Department of Health of the District of Columbia, 2000.
...crimes committed in 2005 due to bias against the victim's perceived sexual orientation represented 14.2 percent of reported hate crime incidents - the highest level in the 12 years since the agency began collecting these statistics. Violent crime throughout the United States has been declining in recent years, yet hate crimes against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people continue to rise.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table1.htm
Anti-transgender hate crimes continue to be under-reported. Unfortunately, data on anti-transgender hate crimes is not currently collected in Maryland.
According to law enforcement sources, an average of one transgendered individual is murdered each month in the United States. In our own backyard, Washington, D.C. has experienced a particularly high rate of anti-transgender violence in recent years:
In 2002, Stephanie Thomas and Ukea Davis, transgender teens, were brutally gunned down in Southeast Washington, D.C. In August 2003, Bella Evangelista, a popular entertainer in Washington, D.C. was shot to death multiple times at close range. Police have treated the murder as a hate crime. The same month, police discovered the nude body of Emonie Kiera Spaulding in a field. She had been shot but also had severe head wounds. That same evening, there was a second, near-fatal shooting of a transgender woman. These are just a few of the crimes against transgender individuals that rocked D.C.
In 1998, Marylanders were shocked to read about the murder of Lynn Vines. Leonard "Lynn" Vines, a 32 year-old cross-dresser and native of East Baltimore, was accosted in front of his cousin's home and shot six times by a group of 10 people asserting that "we don't allow no drag queen faggots in this neighborhood." Vines survived the attack, which police investigated as a hate crime, and received an outpouring of support from Maryland residents outraged by the violence.
In 1999, a group of six went on a crime spree in Baltimore that included over a dozen armed robberies and four carjacking incidents. While most of the victims were threatened at gunpoint and otherwise not injured, one man was hit in the head with a baseball bat, and Tacy Ranta, prominent transgender activist, was fatally shot in the chest. According to the detective on the case, one of the assailants asked the shooter why he had shot "that lady." The shooter replied, "That was no lady - that was a faggot." Some transgender activists believe that since Ranta was the only one killed, the murder was a hate crime based on her status as a transsexual.
http://www.equalitymaryland.org/hateviolence.htm
You said While they still have the bodily structures of men, they should use the men's room.
You think so? There's one easy way for you to find out if a trans woman would be safe in that men's room. Get yourself dressed like a woman and go use public men's rooms.
Employers and landlords shouldn't be forced to walk on eggshells when they're around these people to avoid a lawsuit.
I have to wonder how long has Anon felt that treating people equally is like "walking on eggshells to avoid a lawsuit." Apparently fear of litigation the only way to get some to practice the golden rule. Thank goodness most of us are not motivated by fear.
BTW the Washington Post just published the history of AIDS as it traveled around the world from its origins in the Congo. Those interested in facts about the spread of AIDS should check it out.
Anonymous said "So, to you, if anyone doesn't want to pass laws giving a group special status as a protected group, they must hate them?".
Religious people are protected in the anti-discrimination law, according to you that's "special status", how about you confirm your opposition to their "special status"? Because you don't want LGBTs to have the same "special status" that you do? Fact is when transpeople get the same status you have its not "special", its equality you liar.
Anonymous said "There are no rights "enjoyed by the majority of our citizens" that aren't enjoyed by all of them.".
Wrong. The anti-discrimination law covers the majority of people based on race, religion and ethnic background but it does not cover tranpeople. We do not have the same rights you do and that is immoral.
Anonymous said "If someone disagrees with the idea of gender travelling and doesn't want to associate with or be associated with people that engage in it, it should be their right to do so. Everyone doesn't need to be forced by the government to be nice to transgenders. Employers and landlords shouldn't be forced to walk on eggshells when they're around these people to avoid a lawsuit.".
so, it should similarly be my right to discriminate against the religious. But you'd oppose that, wouldn't you? Religionists don't deserve special rights that transpeople don't have.
Anonymous said "Calling someone's racial identity the equivalent of unnatural sexual desire is offensive.".
It is perfectly natural for a minority of the population to be same sex attracted and transgendered. Neither racial identity nor gender identity harm others and they are perfectly equivalent in that way.
Anonymous said "Everyone has an equal right to use the bathroom of their gender."
And transpeople are simply using the bathroom that is appropriate to their mind's gender. Everyone has a right to use a bathroom in safety and transwomen can't use the men's bathroom safely.
Anonymous said "Everyone has to deal with the fact that when they apply for a job or look for an apartment, there are things unique about them that others might not like and might affect accomplishing their goal. It's called life.".
No, not everyone - religionists don't have to deal with that because they are protected by an anti-discrimination law. Transpeople deserve the same protections religionists have.
Anonymous said "You may not be aware, because you probably weren't around but the gay liberation movement of the 70s was closely subsequented by the introduction of a new deadly and incurable disease to our nation.".
Ignoring the fact that that's a lie, let's assume it was true for the sake of argument - in that case your statement has the same validity as the fact that there were no nuclear weapons before women got the vote.
Post a Comment
<< Home